The lions, tigers, and bears belong to the wizard. Copyrighted. :)Everything else but waterfowl belongs to the state.Waterfowl is public except for Mallard ducks.They are MINE. Y'all need to quit shooting my ducks.

assateague wrote:I most certainly am not part of the "their". An "owner" is one thing, a "custodian" is another. The state has appointed themselves "custodians" of the game. That word applies not only to the well-being of the game, but also a responsibility for it as well. Which is pretty much demonstrated in your last sentence, regarding compensation for certain damages. In for a penny, in for a pound.

In short, if my kid breaks my window, I'm on the hook. And if he breaks someone else's window, I'm on the hook for that as well. And perhaps while we're on the subject, perhaps someone could point out where in the constitution it says the federal government should be responsible for waterfowl.

Then sue the state for damages to your car caused by your deer, and see how it goes. You might actually have some success in a region where deer hunting has been eliminated or curtailed by public referendum or other non-biological action. But if there is a season set through a standard regulatory process, you almost certainly will not.

Federal control over migratory birds via the Migratory Bird Treaty Act was upheld in Missouri vs Holland in 1920. A quick google search gets you to numerous sites to read about it.

assateague wrote: Arguing constitutionality based off of court decisions is both lazy and not very accurate. So where in the constitution is the federal government granted authority over birds?

OK, but you still have to read it for yourself.

You see, I'm not arguing constitutionality. That's what the Supreme Court does. I'm not interested in arguing your view, my view, or anyone else's view of what is and isn't constitutional because those views are not relevant. The Supreme Court's decisions provide the foundation for the way things are, and the federal government clearly has authority over migratory birds. That's the way it's been for nearly 100 years, and I'm not aware of any new challenges that might change that anytime soon.

assateague wrote: Arguing constitutionality based off of court decisions is both lazy and not very accurate. So where in the constitution is the federal government granted authority over birds?

OK, but you still have to read it for yourself.

You see, I'm not arguing constitutionality. That's what the Supreme Court does. I'm not interested in arguing your view, my view, or anyone else's view of what is and isn't constitutional because those views are not relevant. The Supreme Court's decisions provide the foundation for the way things are, and the federal government clearly has authority over migratory birds. That's the way it's been for nearly 100 years, and I'm not aware of any new challenges that might change that anytime soon.

Well, since that's "the way it's been", I guess that settles it.

WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.

If I own something, then i own something. It is mine to use as I please. If something is held in trust for me, it is held in trust for me. Those are two entirely different concepts, and are far from interchangeable.

WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.

But to answer your question, I would argue that, de facto, the state has appropriated ownership of wildlife. They tell me who, what, where, when, why, and how someone can hunt wildlife. I'd say that makes it theirs, unless I'm missing something.

WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.

If I own something, then i own something. It is mine to use as I please. If something is held in trust for me, it is held in trust for me. Those are two entirely different concepts, and are far from interchangeable.

O.K., I see your line of reasoning....

The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

assateague wrote:But to answer your question, I would argue that, de facto, the state has appropriated ownership of wildlife. They tell me who, what, where, when, why, and how someone can hunt wildlife. I'd say that makes it theirs, unless I'm missing something.

But when it comes to migratory birds, the federal government tells the state what they are allowed to tell you.